From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f198.google.com (mail-io0-f198.google.com [209.85.223.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5A26B0069 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 10:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-io0-f198.google.com with SMTP id p127so576764114iop.5 for ; Fri, 06 Jan 2017 07:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a188si3509835ioa.136.2017.01.06.07.37.41 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Jan 2017 07:37:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id v96so34876572ioi.0 for ; Fri, 06 Jan 2017 07:37:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170106152052.GS5556@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170106152052.GS5556@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Eric Dumazet Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 07:37:41 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: __GFP_REPEAT usage in fq_alloc_node Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11409dee68425b05456eccfc Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML --001a11409dee68425b05456eccfc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi Eric, > I am currently checking kmalloc with vmalloc fallback users and convert > them to a new kvmalloc helper [1]. While I am adding a support for > __GFP_REPEAT to kvmalloc [2] I was wondering what is the reason to use > __GFP_REPEAT in fq_alloc_node in the first place. c3bd85495aef > ("pkt_sched: fq: more robust memory allocation") doesn't mention > anything. Could you clarify this please? > > Thanks! > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170102133700.1734-1-mhocko@kernel.org > [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170104181229.GB10183@dhcp22.suse.cz > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > At the time, tests on the hardware I had in my labs showed that vmalloc() could deliver pages spread all over the memory and that was a small penalty (once memory is fragmented enough, not at boot time) I guess this wont be anymore a concern if I can finish my pending work about vmalloc() trying to get adjacent pages https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/21/285 Thanks. --001a11409dee68425b05456eccfc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>= ; wrote:
Hi Eri= c,
I am currently checking kmalloc with vmalloc fallback users and convert
them to a new kvmalloc helper [1]. While I am adding a support for
__GFP_REPEAT to kvmalloc [2] I was wondering what is the reason to use
__GFP_REPEAT in fq_alloc_node in the first place. c3bd85495aef
("pkt_sched: fq: more robust memory allocation") doesn't ment= ion
anything. Could you clarify this please?

Thanks!

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20= 170102133700.1734-1-mhocko@kernel.org
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2017= 0104181229.GB10183@dhcp22.suse.cz
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

At th= e time, tests on the hardware I had in my labs showed that vmalloc() could = deliver pages spread
all over the memory an= d that was a small penalty (once memory is fragmented enough, not at boot t= ime)

I= guess this wont be anymore a concern if I can finish my pending work about= vmalloc() trying to get adjacent pages
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12= /21/285

Thanks.


--001a11409dee68425b05456eccfc-- -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org